Originally posted by motherbucker34
Modern humans are forced to their brains as a defence mechanism unlike our ancestors.

Our ancestors used their brains also. The ones who had the best brains had a higher survival quotient. Brain physiology plays an important part in social interactions, group dynamics. Those ancestors of ours who adapted well to the intricacies of society, learned to lie, give off signals, cultivate beneficial relationships, etc. those were the more succesful individuals.

Originally posted by moetherbucker34
Not only are we becoming a more cognitive species, our genetic cross-breeding is becoming a more regular thing due to the "melting pot" theory. This idea is evident in dogs. Dogs were cross bred to expliot the strength of several species. Not to sound racist, I believe that within our diversity of race, we have our own unique strenghts and weaknesses. I can see future humans merging into a single race...which is a form of evolution in itself.

I agree that individuals have a higher capacity for intelect than ever previously (all evidence points to this). I also agree that inter mixing between formerly isolated groups is healthy for the gene pool. Pure bred dogs suffer more ailments and genetic disorders than mutts, in general they suffer from bad tempers and a plethora of health problems. Similarly, pure bred (that's another way of saying inbred) humans suffer the same handicaps. Some of the signs in both humans and dogs are; early onset dementia, cruelty/emotional problems, hip displacia, diabetes, skin disorders, and genetic anomalies of all kinds. The races of the world do have strengths and weaknesses, but I think sometimes people forget the degree to which that is environmental. A strength can become a weakness when applied incorrectly or in the wrong situation.

For example, it's proven that people are healthier when they eat a diet rich in those foods their ancestors ate, they show fewer incidences of depression and anxiety when living in the land their ancestors evolved in, and raise more offspring to maturity in their 'ancestral' setting. (I'm almost positive that I've read studies that confirmed all three of those claims.)

For all the same reasons it doesn't make sense to take a frog out of pond and toss it in the ocean, people are happier when in the lands of their forefathers, following the customs they've evolved over time, utilizing the disease immunities relelvant to the area (sickle cell). In a way, globalization may spell the ruin of independent evolution outside of catastrophic circumstances. Social, and Sexual evolution likely play a larger role than ever due to the changes.

You mention survival of the fittest and natural selection in a way that suggests they are attributable to the evolution of man. I tend to disagree. Maybe for the other species we share this world with Darwin's theories may apply, but for man, no. Jesus didn't descend from apes naturally.

Originally posted by mattison0922
No problemo... there's no such thing as too much info.... just too little time.

That is the absolute truth.

Originally posted by mattison0922
Actually, it's one of my favorite things to debate... sort of a hobby area of mine... pretty much my main hobby area.

Don't misunderstand, I don't think the science or the theory is boring, far from it. I agree completely, it's a fascinating subject - but those who believe in it are constantly assailed by those who seek to disprove it with faulty logic and scriptural irrelevancies. I don't understand the compulsion of some to categorically deny it, and so proving the basics over and over again gets tedious. The intricacies of evolution, the possibility for the future, the interactions between evolving creatures (evolutionary arms race); all fascinating.

Evolutionary psychology, a relatively new field, is what I'm trying to understand now - the nitty gritty of behavioral patterns in humans based on evolved mechanisms and unconcious decision making/risk analysis.

Oh, and your point about boiling water, touche. My point was; why debate the existence of something observable, when we could be debating it's PROPERTIES and the ways in which the natural laws manifest themselves? If the theory of evolution was a stepping stone, we should be investigating the next rungs on the ladder, no? The problem with debating evolution with religious people is it seems to always end up in the same quagmire, the fundamental inability of some people to observe the world seperate from learned ignorance (what an oxymoron that is huh?). You're either with us or against us indeed...

I feel the same way about debating evolution with religious people as I feel about debating politics and governance with partisan weenies - I'd rather trepan myself with a nail gun than pour any more knowledge through their sieve. When a person has been completely reprogrammed with false information, is there anything that can be done?

Originally posted by mattison0922
I respectfully disagree. I think most of the hard questions are totally ignored, or blown of by the science community. This is another area where I don't disagree with my colleagues.

What would you consider hard questions then? Did you mean agree? The transfer of genetic material is well understood, its function in heredity is well understood (within limits). We understand the processes whereby unsuitable organisms are marginalized and superceded by suitable ones, and we have a good grasp of the parameters of suitability within any given environment (all it takes is an analytical mind). Science accepts the role of random mutation, and understands many of the factors that instigate/aggrivate it. I'm not sure what elements of evolutionary theory are still up for debate, other than continued comparison of the theory to real life examples to add to the burden of proof. Can you clarify what you meant?

Originally posted by mattison0922
It is an interesting topic... one of the few in science that becomes heated so quickly that isn't directly related to morality. Most people I discuss it with believe themselves to be well informed, but tend to turn tail and run when the heat really gets poured on.

I think it is related to morality honestly. It's related to our perception of will and the illusion of control we maintain regarding our actions. The clash between the laws of nature and the laws of man. Most people think they control everything they do, but in fact they're sorely mistaken. I think it would shock and surprise people how little control they have over their day to day interactions and decisions. We are an inteligent, adaptive creature, but our reptile brain is older than our man brain, and people need to respect and ackowledge that.

We DO have free will to varying degrees, but those actions that aren't willfull (and even some that are) are entirely derived from programming based on millions of years of evolution (immoral evolution I might add). Therefore, even the most dedicated preacher of tolerance and compassion has a raptor lurking in his skull. I don't think we can ever forget that. As a side note, there seems to be evidence to suggest that high IQ signals a greater degree of interoperability between the conscious and unconscious decision making engines - but that's just my assesment.

It was decided long ago, by evolution, that important instructions should be hard coded to prevent the clumsy monkeys from mucking it up. If consciousness is the tip of the iceberg..there is much undiscovered. Our social interactions are of particular interest to me, the way people display the EXACT same behavior sets as apes when in a group setting. Our conscious mind is interesting, because of it's ability to utilize logic and emotion at the same time, but I still remain drawn to understanding our unconscious motivations and behaviors. Watch a few hours of Ape documentaries, and then observe people in their natural social settings.

In a way the moral issue is entirely manufactured for the benefit of control, because people want to believe that their ephemeral projections of right and wrong are from the heart, or from god, or somehow superior to our hardwired behavior. Those men who speak like angels and think like reptiles do exceedingly well in every society man has created. I personally think morality is bunk. Morals are almost by definition the opposite of reality, they are an idealized, rose colored view of actions that are actually rooted closer to efficiency than people would like to admit.

For example: When someone holds the door for you, why are they doing it? Most people will answer with 'it's the polite thing to do.' Of course it is. But what is polite? Polite is a defined set of social behaviors that strive to ensure reciprocity in our interactions - being polite is the most effective way of being accepted by other people. If you hold doors for one person a day, you can reasonably expect someone else to hold a door for you. There are a few good computer models that prove reciprocity is one of the first behaviors evolved in social animals, out of necessity.

Holding the door has no real consequences, other than taking five seconds out of your day. Not holding the door on the other hand is a social faux pas that could have real life consequences. You made the decision to hold the door or not long before the door opened. I believe the mind is a very efficient survival tool, and the more finely tuned it becomes the more devious its behaviours. Morality can't hold a candle to cold, hard, evolved efficiency.

Love is a great example. So are the particulars of intimidation (I used to study and compare threat displays between species), lies, theft, charity, and a thousand others. Our social interactions are relatively transparent to those who care to study them from the dispassionate paradigm of science and cause/effect. It's no wonder the aliens can't take their eyes off of us!

I took time out from another post I was working on to answer this, but now i should probably put my nose back on the grindstone where it belongs (the topic of cancer).


Good response mattison, as usual. I always look forward to your posts!
Wyrde

Originally posted by nightbreid
Jesus didn't descend from apes naturally.

Do you have any proof of this claim? Nope.
Can you prove Jesus was even a real person? Nope.
Have you ever analyzed Jesus' DNA to check the theory? Nope.
Is there anything other than dogma that led you to this conclusion? Nope.

Despite the party line, Mary wasn't a virgin. She was trying to hide something. Virgin birth..an entire religion based on an oxymoron.

I think you're entitled to your beliefs, but you have to admit that there is less support for your point of view since people learned to read. That's not a good sign. Organized religion is an ancient control mechanism, and eventually people will outgrow its relevance. Faith on the other hand is magical and more powerful than science, though not nearly so structured. Embrace faith, and you'll have no need for religion. That's my advice.

Originally posted by mattison0922
This is statement is based on what.... oh yeah.... nothing.

I said mathematical probability. Do I have to keep repeating myself?

Originally posted by mattison0922
It's not a question of probability at all, if anything it's a question of chemistry, not mathematics, but occuring in a complex system, means there's more at work than chemistry... there's natural selection.

Well go and inform all of the people working in computational biology and bioinfomatics that they're waisting their time because mathematics isn't applicable to a biological information system.

Originally posted by mattison0922
There is nothing, no law, whatever that dictates non-coding regions of a genome will eventually become coding regions. There exists significant speculation that this has occured, but is DEFINITELY NOT an absolute that's written into the DNA molecule.

You mean an absolute written in a textbook that _you_ have read?

Originally posted by mattison0922
Then whats the point? You can speculate and make up all the stuff you want, and it's not doing anything to further this discussion... until you start speaking in terms of facts that is.

I could ask the same question of you. I'm quite aware that there hasn't been enough comparisons between entire genomes to determine whether or not 'junk DNA' eventually becomes functional for protein coding. So the fact that you've tried to argue against my points simply means you didn't understand what I was trying to say.

Originally posted by electric
This is Above Top Secret, not a forum regarding genetics. Who says people are not allowed to express alternative views on the biological meaning of evolution? If everyone's view was the same as the textbooks view, it would be pointless reading the posts here.

red is red, blue is blue.
that all i really have to say

I see no problem with people presenting speculations on this forum. I certainly haven't been advised by any moderators to stop speculating about any topic.

[edit on 1-3-2005 by electric]

Don't misunderstand,

Certainly no offense taken.

Evolutionary psychology, a relatively new field, is what I'm trying to understand now - the nitty gritty of behavioral patterns in humans based on evolved mechanisms and unconcious decision making/risk analysis.

Hmmmm… is this along the lines of genetic memory or a similar topic? That particular area of biochemistry is astonishing to me. Caribou can walk across streams within hours after their birth… how do they know how to do this?

If the theory of evolution was a stepping stone, we should be investigating the next rungs on the ladder, no?

I agree completely.

The problem with debating evolution with religious people is it seems to always end up in the same quagmire, the fundamental inability of some people to observe the world seperate from learned ignorance (what an oxymoron that is huh?). You're either with us or against us indeed...

Ironically enough, I very rarely debate evolution from that perspective. Very rarely am I debating a creationist and trying to reason with them scientifically. Most often, I am discussing the limitations of the proposed evolutionary mechanisms, the difficulties with abiogenesis, and conundrum of creation of new genetic information, etc. It really irks me when people make a statement like ‘abiogenesis theories have the origin of life solved,’ when it’s not even approaching that.

I feel the same way about debating evolution with religious people as I feel about debating politics and governance with partisan weenies - I'd rather trepan myself with a nail gun than pour any more knowledge through their sieve. When a person has been completely reprogrammed with false information, is there anything that can be done?

Interestingly enough, not only religious people can be programmed with false information. IMO, many within the secular community are extremely misinformed about many aspects of evolutionary science in general. I follow most of these types of threads on ATS, mostly I just sit back and shake my head, but sometimes someone starts espousing complete misinformation, yet they aren’t getting called on it. Often I feel the need to step up in and correct the misinformation. Then again… sometimes people just seem like they’ll be great debate opponents, so I’ll get into it with them (Nygdan ).

What would you consider hard questions then? Did you mean agree? The transfer of genetic material is well understood, its function in heredity is well understood (within limits). We understand the processes whereby unsuitable organisms are marginalized and superceded by suitable ones, and we have a good grasp of the parameters of suitability within any given environment (all it takes is an analytical mind). Science accepts the role of random mutation, and understands many of the factors that instigate/aggrivate it. I'm not sure what elements of evolutionary theory are still up for debate, other than continued comparison of the theory to real life examples to add to the burden of proof. Can you clarify what you meant?

Definitely DID NOT mean agree. Hmmm… I would say that abiogenesis theories, while not evolution per se, are distinctly unsatisfying. The origin of complex biological systems is also particularly troubling. The photosynthetic reaction center, electron transport, and other systems that involve not only proteins, but essential accessory molecules that must be arranged within 0.1 angstrom distances are particularly difficult systems to envision random chemical processes giving rise to. Many biological pathways suffer from this same dilemma. Glycolysis for example, is a ten step pathway that requires the end product at the beginning. The evolution of this pathway in a stepwise manner is particularly difficult to envision. No useful energy currency is generated until the end of the pathway. The things that you mentioned make sense on some level, as long as life already exists. It’s the generation of complex biological systems that troubles me in particular. I am not even convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that it’s even possible for organisms to evolve into different ‘kinds,’ ie: from a reptile to a bird. I have significant difficulties envisioning the shift from single celled to multicellular organisms, which would seem to require the simultaneous generation of relevant biochemistries that permit communication between cells, etc. I could in fact, go on like this all day.

I think it is related to morality honestly. It's related to our perception of will and the illusion of control we maintain regarding our actions. The clash between the laws of nature and the laws of man. Most people think they control everything they do, but in fact they're sorely mistaken. I think it would shock and surprise people how little control they have over their day to day interactions and decisions. We are an inteligent, adaptive creature, but our reptile brain is older than our man brain, and people need to respect and ackowledge that.

I think it could be even more than that… I think the implications (not religious) of evolution not being true… ie: that genomes don’t improve or become more complex over time are staggering. It would imply that genetic codes are in a constant state of degeneracy… having in fact de-evolved from an ‘ideal’ state towards an unpredictable future. Evidence of such degeneracy would appear in the form of increased genetic disorders, increased cancers, increased birth defects, an increase in the frequency of ‘harmful’ or ‘undesirable’ alleles in general.

It was decided long ago, by evolution, that important instructions should be hard coded to prevent the clumsy monkeys from mucking it up. If consciousness is the tip of the iceberg..there is much undiscovered. Our social interactions are of particular interest to me, the way people display the EXACT same behavior sets as apes when in a group setting. Our conscious mind is interesting, because of it's ability to utilize logic and emotion at the same time, but I still remain drawn to understanding our unconscious motivations and behaviors. Watch a few hours of Ape documentaries, and then observe people in their natural social settings.

On this, I agree. There is a blurry line between the social interactions of animals, and the social interactions of man. You can see, the same similarities in behavior even outside of the primate family though. Elephants, dolphins, whales all display complex social behaviors and seem to express what can only be described as emotion.

Those men who speak like angels and think like reptiles do exceedingly well in every society man has created.

Oh… I didn’t realize you knew my father-in-law.

I personally think morality is bunk. Morals are almost by definition the opposite of reality, they are an idealized, rose colored view of actions that are actually rooted closer to efficiency than people would like to admit.

Am still pondering this particular statement… and the door holding thing too.

Love is a great example.

Perhaps you’d care to comment on this. What would be the selective pressure for this too exist… Certainly it’s not required for reproduction. The selective pressure for an emotion like love and even sexual reproduction totally escape me. It seems like nature would select against sexual reproduction. While it does create diversity, there are other ways to create genetic diversity that don’t involve sexual reproduction. Alleles can be shuffled and reorganized without sexual reproduction. Seems like asexual reproduction is a more efficient way to go.

Good response mattison, as usual. I always look forward to your posts!
Wyrde

Likewise! I am interested to hear your reaction to my comments.


[edit on 1-3-2005 by mattison0922]

Originally posted by electric
Well go and inform all of the people working in computational biology and bioinfomatics that they're waisting their time because mathematics isn't applicable to a biological information system.

I never said this. One of my best friends actually heads up the computation bio dept. at my Univ. Mathematics certainly has a place in bio... but mathematics doesn't predict the rate at which viral genomes will recombine or if and when non-coding regions will someday become coding regions. It doesn't boil down to just a mathematical probability... anything that involves enzymes and specific recombination sites is hardly reduced to a simple mathematical probability.

You mean an absolute written in a textbook that _you_ have read?

I don't get my information from textbooks. The last science text I read was when I was on a review board for a new edition of an established biochemistry text. I generally read primary research articles and an occassional edited text. But I don't get my info from science texts. But no matter how you cut it...there is not a requirement or even an established tendency for non-coding information to suddenly becoming coding. If you were aware of exactly what sequence elements tend to be present in non-coding regions, you would understand the difficulties in converting non-coding DNA into coding DNA. It's far more complex than just waiting long enough for the probabilities to become realistic.

I could ask the same question of you. I'm quite aware that there hasn't been enough comparisons between entire genomes to determine whether or not 'junk DNA' eventually becomes functional for protein coding. So the fact that you've tried to argue against my points simply means you didn't understand what I was trying to say.

Go ahead and ask... junk DNA is a total misnomer. Just because it doesn't code or have a function we know about doesn't make it junk. It doesn't take studying an entire genome to elucidate on the properties of junk DNA. New functions for junk DNA are being discovered all the time. Junk DNA is a term that is falling out of fashion, and for good reason.

Wow, how'd this go for four pages?

Once a species becomes "intelligent", evolution dies.

And of course we know this from the MULTITUDE of intelligent species I suppose? We're pretty much in unchartered waters on this one...

Originally posted by cheeser

And what makes you think that 'intelligence' is not part of the evolution? here is a real scenario: Europe has become old; in the near future, over 50% of the population will be old (over 70 years old). This has many evolution-like effects: yellow and dark-skinned people will take over Europe: blacks, asians, etc. The white 'race' will be almost eliminated. That's evolution.

Evolution is a fact of life, and will never stop. Get over with it (you and all the millions of ignorant people that go against it).

Dictionary meaning of 'Evolution'
'Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.'

what you are saying, directly has nothing to do with 'EVOLUTION'.
read the meaning clearfully

There lots of types of evolution. The definition you have presented is about genetic evolution (i.e. evolution of DNA). But evolution happens on various levels...there is macroevolution; for example, when a big population dies out of starvation, that's evolution: it lets the fittest survive. In this case, the fittest were the organisms with smaller populations.

In the same line, the population of Europe will get older and older, and then the young people from East will take over. That's evolution: protecting the European population will not make more and and more people reach old age, because the reproductive capability of the population will reach zero, thus making the old population die. In other words, when all Europeans are over 70 years old, they will suddently be no old people left, invalidating the effort to protect people more and more.

As for genetic evolution, even with all the medical care people get and all the technology available, evolution still happens: people's bodies will become weaker, heads bigger, bigger eyes, longer and more fragile fingers etc., because people use their body less and less and their brain more and more.

Originally posted by masterp
evolution still happens: people's bodies will become weaker, heads bigger, bigger eyes, longer and more fragile fingers etc., because people use their body less and less and their brain more and more.

Amazing! Despite years of research and progress in the area of 'evolution,' we still have these Lamarckian explanations for evolution being offered.

Though I suppose with bio texts STILL espousing the notion of 'ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny,' this shouldn't be surprising.

Organized religion is an ancient control mechanism, and eventually people will outgrow its relevance. Faith on the other hand is magical and more powerful than science, though not nearly so structured. Embrace faith, and you'll have no need for religion. That's my advice.

The ancient control mechanism you speak of is one of the reasons why I abandoned Catholicism at an early age. One doesn't have to be led by the nose every Sunday to believe Jesus Christ existed. I have already embraced faith in the God of my understanding, thank you, and that faith has led me to believe that the reason we inhabit the earth is because of intervention from some form of intelligence greater than ourselves.